At 2:51 a.m. PDT on Sept. 14, twin observatories in Washington and Louisiana detected “ripples in the fabric of spacetime.” After months of checking and re-checking, the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) team, including Humboldt State University alumnus Corey Gray, announced on Feb. 11 it had found evidence of gravity waves in a fifth-of-a-second “chirp” detected simultaneously at both sites. A 40-year, billion-dollar gamble had paid off.
Based on his theory of General Relativity, Einstein predicted that spacetime would undulate noticeably given a sufficiently violent event (in this case, the distant collision of two black holes having a combined mass of over 60 suns). By “noticeably,” we’re not talking about something you can feel or see. Detection of the ripples — measuring less than one thousandth of the diameter of a proton — had to wait for super-sensitive technology to be invented and built. In the LIGOs, laser light is bounced 75 times to and fro inside a pair of 2-and-a-half-mile long vacuum tubes set at right angles to each other. Interferometers detect when the returning waves are slightly out of phase, indicating that a passing gravity wave has slightly altered the lengths of the tubes. They are probably the most precise measuring tools ever built. Two were needed to filter out local effects.
The best thing: A brilliantly designed and executed experiment has confirmed the notion of Einstein’s pliable spacetime matrix. But that’s also the worst thing. Claude Shannon, father of information theory, famously quipped that information can be viewed as the capacity of a system to surprise the observer. Since General Relativity has already been confirmed via a dozen independent experimental approaches, detection of gravity waves last September amazed no one. The surprise — and therefore the information-value — would have been in not detecting a signal after running the experiment for a suitably long time. Similarly, the discovery of the Higgs boson four years ago, confirmation of the Standard Model of particle physics, was completely anticipated. Both findings — gravity waves and the Higgs boson — merely confirmed what we already knew. Like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s clue of a dog that didn’t bark on the night of a theft, not finding either one would have been the more compelling result.
In the big picture, physics is at a stalemate if the best we can do is to confirm already well-accepted theories. The only major unanticipated discovery in physics in the last few decades was in 1998, when two independent groups simultaneously found that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, thereby opening up whole new areas for future investigation. Impressive as they are, neither the LIGO results nor the Higgs boson detection offer much opportunity for truly radical progress.
On the other hand, I’m skeptical of taking the LIGO announcement at face value, and not because I doubt the precision of the experiment itself. What I worry about is our reliance on the spacetime metaphor, in which time and space are metaphysically interwoven into an invisible, flexible “fabric.” Following the LIGO announcement, animations of rippling spacetime (like water in a pond after a stone is tossed in) popped up on the web, as if such a purely metaphorical scenario were literally true. Newton imagined gravity as an invisible force acting at a distance; Einstein, working in a pre-quantum era, invoked the curvature of spacetime. What’s next? When (not if) our current conception of gravity is superseded by some new and improved theory, how long do you think that metaphor will last?
Barry Evans (barryevans9@yahoo.com) doubts the existence of black holes, too.
This article appears in Homing the Houseless.

If you find the detection of gravity waves as fascinating (and weird!) as I do, check:
http://www.ligo.org/science/faq.php#mirror…
I see why you mentioned this to me. I knew intuitively you were aware of the many metaphors and I appreciate it very much apart from any differences we may have.
Forgive me for chuckling, but as the late Robert Jastrow has already eluded to ( https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/87… ), there has been an alternative for centuries. it is not new and improved as our understanding of the universe in terms of mechanical limits (materialism) may be near exhaustion.
Once we necessarily reach the point of metaphysics we are in the realm of faith.
Just this last week I have used my opportunity to listen to CDs and audio books at work to listen once again to a short but robust talk by John Lennox of Oxford. At one point he reminisces about a conversation he had with Freddrick Hoyle about the concept of information. According to lennox, Sir Fred argued that the concept of information originated with Shakespeare. In response Lennox said, “No it doesn’t Sir Fred. It goes back to ancient scripture thousands of years ago.”
Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (English Standard)
Now admittedly we are getting into information theory and I realize that it is hotly debated. But in these reaches of debate I cannot but wonder what the role of philosophical bias and pride play in our commitments to the various camps. It is hard sometimes to simply admit we are wrong. Such a small pill, such a simple foolish thing, yet almost impossible at times.
Btw, thank you for answering one of my questions. Since hearing of this news I have been meaning to look into the details to find out just how the measuring was done. How it was done had the potential to shed light (in the metaphorical sense of course) on the nature of gravity.
Once again it eludes us. And even in the case that it were illuminated, say as a particle for instance, there will remain the existence of information behind the universe which (and I agree with Lennox) is not material or in any sense physical even though the carriers of the information can be.
As a Christian who believes that behind the created order is WORD, this makes perfect sense in spite of its abilty to elude me by its shear mystery. One need not be a genius to recognize the presence of genius. And that helps keep me humble and in my proper role as student.
Thinking about this today I suppose that what this really accomplishes is to support the idea that gravity is not itself necessarily a ‘thing’ with a particular nature, but rather the distortion of space time. That is also very interesting and leaves us not wondering so much about the nature of gravity, but space. It obviously acts like a linked matrix of some kind, a fabric or whatever metaphor we want to use. Whatever it is it is real, but I personally cannot conceive of it being material in any sense we mean by the term.
What do we make of real things that are not material? Kind of throws into question what we mean by ‘real, not to mention what we mean by ‘nature’.
As I was editing tonight something struck me about these gravity waves.
Naturally, there are challenges when translating ancient Hebrew to English as in certain cases the Hebrew terms often carry deeper meaning than any particular corresponding English term allows.
I noticed that Genesis 1:2 may be describing space because it describes the earliest account of creation as ‘formless and void”. In this particular case, other translations render it, “formless and empty”. I am cool with that, same difference, simple enough…
But then it says, “and the spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the deep”. And because of those translating challenges others render it, “over the face of the waters”. The difference is greater here, and if it were to turn out that the Hebrew terms imply depth, waves, and surface, then…
How did the Hebrews know that space time can have waves? Furthermore, and in the peculiar context of space time, ‘surface’ as well? If that were to turn out to be the case, then how could they know that 3000 years ago when we confirmed it just 6 months ago on Sept 14?
Barry, I owe you a debt of gratitude for helping me focus my thoughts over the last year so that they can be made intelligible. You have motivated me to work harder, and smarter. That’s what good teachers do whether they intend it or not. In your case, I wish not to judge which side of that equation you would fall. You are like a photon, a tomato seed, and resistant to being pinned.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lock…